Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01

Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com> Tue, 10 April 2018 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <leeyoung@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2B712426E; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.63
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.63 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, INVALID_MSGID=0.568, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYlUbDHfvnTJ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 006F81241F5; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 86E2665FAD1AE; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:27:51 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:27:53 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.168]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.179]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 05:27:43 -0700
From: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp-chairs@ietf.org" <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org" <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
Thread-Index: AdPQbmJS5UIwaCdyQOi13NXEt2f0CgAUO8tMAAIAQbE=
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:27:42 +0000
Message-ID: 0D43E321-1B63-4452-AF5A-88226E49D808
References: <F82A4B6D50F9464B8EBA55651F541CF8AB65D061@DGGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com>, <01e901d3d0bf$2c2aa6c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <01e901d3d0bf$2c2aa6c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0D43E3211B634452AF5A88226E49D808_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/zrkDYDDnOtTlyk3J6uhnr9QzMe4>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:27:57 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your comment.
I agree with you. We can improve the model using types statement instead of the enumeration of the list.

I think WG adoption is just a starting point not a completion of the draft and it's model. Please suggest other concerns so that the draft and the model can be improved.

Thanks.
Young (on behalf of co-authors)


From:t.petch
To:Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang),ccamp@ietf.org,
Cc:ccamp-chairs@ietf.org,draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org,
Date:2018-04-10 06:30:24
Subject:Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01

Mmmm

I can't help thinking that this I-D may indicate a failure of the WG to
be a WG:-(

I see a very long list of enumerations/identities for Gigabit Ethernet,
Fiber channel, STM, OC, etc

Surely a layer one Connectivity Service Model is not going to be the
only place where these are needed (Gigabit Ethernet already exists is
some form) so what I think that a WG should be doing is to produce a
'types' module for generic use, IETF and even non-IETF, the way in which
the Netmod WG has done for Interfaces, and other WGs - CCAMP - did many
years earlier for MIB Modules.

And, albeit of less import, there are a significant number of places
where this I-D does not conform with YANG Guidelines.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zhangfatai (Fatai Zhang)" <zhangfatai@huawei.com>
To: <ccamp@ietf.org>
Cc: <ccamp-chairs@ietf.org>; <draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:01 AM
Subject: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01


Hi all,
We now have the IPR declaration replies from all the
authors/contributors (Please see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang/history
/) and no IPR was disclosed against this document.
This starts a two weeks poll on making
[draft-fioccola-ccamp-l1csm-yang-01] a CCAMP working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support" and a motivation for your reply, mandatory for the "not
support" and nice to have for the "support".
The polling ends on April 24th , 2018.

Thanks
Fatai & Daniele




------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>